Jurisdictional disputes in the motion-picture Industry : hearings before a special subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Eightieth Congress, first-session, pursuant to H. Res. 111 (1948)

MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2337 I would be very happy to supply that. jNIr. McCann. It seems to me that is a rather important issue. Mr. ZoKN. I agree with you. Mr. McCann. Secondly, if you have the time I think it would be important, in view of the testimony that Mr. Sorrell gave, that while there were a number of pickets present on one occasion, there was no disorder until the police turned fire hoses on them and incited the violence that followed. In other words, I only want to indicate to him the things which I feel are averments made b}^ Mr. Sorrell which Mr. Zorn may desire to answer. Mr. ZoRN. If we attempted to answer in detail every wild statement Mr. Sorrell had made I think we would be here for a year. What I have done here I think is just a sampling of the kind of ])icketing and the kind of violence and the kind of things that were done. If you gentlemen feel I ought to go further I will be very happy to do it. If you will look at those Warner pictures themselves — and I will come to some of the Warner affidavits — you will find this theory of peaceful picketing just isn't so. My difficulty is this : If I went down the line in every detail of Mr. Sorrell's testimony and tried to answer every one of his wild charges I think we would be here for a couple of months. From my point of view I think it is sufficient to indicate that on various important matters his testimony can be discredited so thoroughly that it therefore becomes unnecessary thereafter to contradict every single statement he made. Mr. Owf:NS, I think, Mr. Chairman, that is the general legal theory of evidence. ]Mr. ZoRN. Now in connection with Mr. Sorrell's statement that no executive was ever kept out of any studio, and in fact he went further and said that nobody was ever kept out of the studio, I would like to read a few extracts from the file in the case of Loew's, Inc., against local 946 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters et al., in the Superior Court of the State of California, Countv of Los Angeles, case No. 519742. The first affidavit is that of Ralph F. Wheelwright, who describes himself in the affidavit as a producer in the Metro-GoldwynMayer studios. I assume I do not have to explain the functions of a producer. The producer is one of the key executives in any studio. His affidavit is sworn to September 27, 1946. He goes on to say : That at 9 : 10 a. in. on September 27, 1946, affiant droA^e his automobile into the parking lot on the north side of Grant Avenue, opposite the Thfilberg Building and parked his car. He left his automobile and proceeded to a point in the parking lot opiiosite the Thalberg Building and walked aci'oss the street. The picket line at that time extended along Grant Avenue, completely blocking entrance to the Thalberg Building, and was approximately 75 feet long. It appeared to the .-iffiant that the ends of the line were blocking the entrance so he then approached th" i)lcket line and attempting to go through it. As he pi'oceeded about one-half way thningh the line, he was .seized by one of the pickets and pushed off the sidewalk into the street. The picket then addressed the affiant as follows: "You dirty s. o. b., don't you know you can't go through a picket line?"